Davis v. Coblens’s Empirical Analysis
174 U.S. 719 · 1899
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1968 · most notably United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. (1927), Elzig v. Gudwangen (1937)
20 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions — followed in 10 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on McDonald v. Hovey · Rea v. Missouri · Demarest v. Wynkoop · Hogan v. Kurtz
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is also objected that Walter was subjected to discriminating remarks by the court. Plaintiffs requested the following instruction: “ ‘The jury are instructed that there is no testimony in this case tending to rebut the testimony of the witness John H. Walter that he never conveyed lot 10 in controversy in this case to any person other than the conveyance by the deed to plaintiffs Charles M. N. Latimer, Lucy T. Davis, and others, and the jury would not be justified in finding to the contrary.’ “The court struck out the words in italics, and inserted instead, ‘and the weight to be given his testimony is a proper question for the jury.’ “The instruction as requested assumed the credibility of the witness; as modified, that question was submitted to the jury, who were the judges of it, and we cannot suppose that the jury misunderstood the court or believed a discrimination was intended.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Elzig v. Gudwangen
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.